These considerations seem to indicate that nations, regarded in their relation toward each other, will go on in the direction in which they have been going unless acted upon by some external force.

Will civilization, commerce, or Christianity impart that force?

Inasmuch as civilization is merely a condition in which men live, and an expression of their history, character and aims, it is difficult to see how it could of itself act as an external force, or cause an external force to act.  “Institutions and laws,” says Le Bon, again, “are the outward manifestation of our character, the expression of its needs.  Being its outcome, institutions and laws cannot change this character.”

Even if the civilization of a given nation may have been brought about in some degree by forces external to that nation, yet it is clear that we must regard that civilization rather as the result of those forces than as a force itself.  Besides, civilization has never yet made the relations of nations with each other more unselfish, civilized nations now and in the past, despite their veneer of courtesy, being fully as jealous of each other as the most savage tribes.  That this should be so seems natural; because civilization has resulted mainly from the attempts of individuals and groups to enhance the pleasures and diminish the ills of life, and therefore cannot tend to unselfishness in either individuals or nations.  Civilization in the past has not operated to soften the relations of nations with each other, so why should it do so now?  Is not modern civilization, with its attendant complexities, rivalries, and jealousies, provocative of quarrels rather than the reverse?  In what respect is modern civilization better than past civilization, except in material conveniences due to material improvements in the mechanic arts?  Are we any more artistic, strong, or beautiful than the Greeks in their palmy days?  Are we braver than the Spartans, more honest than the Chinese, more spiritual than the Hindoos, more religious than the Puritans?  Is not the superior civilization of the present day a mechanical civilization pure and simple?  And has not the invention of electrical and mechanical appliances, with the resulting insuring of communication and transportation, and the improvements in instruments of destruction, advantaged the great nations more than the weaker ones, and increased the temptation to great nations to use force rather than decreased it?  Do not civilization’s improvements in weapons of destruction augment the effectiveness of warlike methods, as compared with the peaceful methods of argument and persuasion?

Diplomacy is an agency of civilization that was invented to avoid war, to enable nations to accommodate themselves to each other without going to war; but, practically, diplomacy seems to have caused almost as many wars as it has averted.  And even if it be granted that the influence of diplomacy has been in the main for peace rather than for war, we know that diplomacy has been in use for centuries, that its resources are well understood, and that they have all been tried out many times; and therefore we ought to realize clearly that diplomacy cannot introduce any new force into international politics now, or exert, an influence for peace that will be more potent in the future than the influence that it has exerted in the past.